Why This Blog?

The aim of this blog is to fit into the blogosphere like the bracingly tart taste of yogurt fits between the boringly bland and the unspeakably vile.

All comments will be answered if their author provides contact info.


I have no sponsoring group(s) or agencies, and I owe no allegiance to any candidate or group.

(C) Copyright 2012 DenRita Enterprises

Friday, July 5, 2013

Fuzzy thinking is here

Fuzzy thinking; it’s here in Costa Mesa, too.

The U.S. Constitution, under the provisions of the Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment limits the states’ ability to forbid medical procedures, specifically, abortion. (Roe vs. Wade, 1973) 

This exemption from state regulation, for the patient and especially for the practitioner, confirms that the Privacy right under the Constitution is superior to the right of the state to regulate medical procedures. (Ginsberg said)

Do they understand the questions?

Recently Hoag Hospital was denounced for “denying women’s constitutional right to abortion.”(Letter) Hoag didn't write a state law about abortion. Limits to state law were what were decided in Roe; beware of fuzzy thinking.

While Al Gore was championing his version of “global warming” he was questioned about some of his estates that left all the outside lighting on every night. Wasn't that extensive all-night lighting contrary to conserving resources?

He replied that he had purchased “Carbon Credits” to offset the use of the lights. There were no Carbon Credit exchanges at the time, but Gore was reported to be part owner of companies planning to trade in carbon credits (imagined to be much like stock exchanges). Perhaps he had purchased the credits from himself. 

However, that begs the question “Is it OK to waste resources if you pay someone else not to waste them (through ‘carbon credits’)?”

That was some more fuzzy thinking in the “global warming” foolishness.

Closer to home 

In Costa Mesa a citizen advised the City Council to contract with his company to do a “needs assessment” to determine if there is a need for a Charter. Why put a lot of time and effort into writing a charter if we don't need one?

That, too, is fuzzy thinking. A charter establishes the rights of a (city in this case) to govern its own affairs. It sets up the rules that guide and constrain city laws (ordinances) about matters that concern only Costa Mesa. It’s very difficult to legitimately quantify the effects of something that hasn't yet been written.

That citizen is now suggesting a “needs assessment” to the Charter Committee through his position on the committee.

Tea Party without a needs assessment

What would have been the “needs assessment” of a British colony that was experiencing onerous controls and taxes from the home country without any viable way to affect its governance? Perhaps the assessment would have shown too much risk and advised more petitioning. But a bunch of folks got frustrated, and without any needs assessment whatsoever, threw a boatload of tea into Boston Harbor.

Which led to our recently-celebrated Independence Day.

What's in the future for Costa Mesa?

Will the Charter Committee be derailed into looking for detailed “needs”? And will it then follow with a hasty charter developed through further fuzzy thinking? Will it succumb to pressures from organized labor and its front organizations?

Or will the members think clearly about consequences, ramifications, and the best way to grab our independence back from State Government?

Time will tell. We can hope.

No comments:

Post a Comment